BCT Editorial – 12/4/08

This page was last updated on December 10, 2008.

Last resort; Editorial; Beaver County Times; December 4, 2008.

The editorial subtitle is “Federal government has no viable options but to rely on borrowing.”

For at least the last four years, Times editorials constantly and correctly complained about deficit spending, the country’s growing debt, and the burden that debt puts on us and future generations. Referring to these complaints as crocodile tears, I questioned the motives in my critiques because Times editorials concurrently lobbied for more spending on just about every proposal that came down the pike. For example, in addition to the increased spending detailed in this editorial, the companion (“Need for speed”) to this editorial asserts “it is important to get federal money down to the local level as soon as possible.”

Now, however, the economists at the Times tell us the “[f]ederal government has no viable options but to rely on borrowing.” Here’s a question. What happened on November 4^th that would cause the Times to “do a 180” on this issue? You have three guesses and the first two don’t count. Expect similar behavior by lefty letter writers who “complained” about deficits and debt during the Bush administration.

This editorial (with the preceding crocodile tear editorials) is yet another example of partisan politics driving a Times position. I wonder if we’ll get an editorial explaining the Times about face on this issue. It would be interesting to read the tortured “logic.”

Finally, the spending proposed by the Times would do nothing to help the economy, and as we learned from FDR’s policies during the Great Depression, these things actually prolong economic downturns.

One last note. I submitted the comment below for the Times website. Without comment, the Times chose not to post it.

“For at least the last four years, Times editorials constantly and correctly complained about deficit spending, the country’s growing debt, and the burden that debt puts on us and future generations. Referring to these complaints as crocodile tears, I questioned the motives in my critiques because Times editorials concurrently lobbied for more spending on just about every proposal that came down the pike. The increased spending in this editorial is just one of many examples.

“Now, however, we read the “[f]ederal government has no viable options but to rely on borrowing.” Here’s a question. What happened on November 4th that would cause the Times to “do a 180” on this issue? You have three guesses and the first two don’t count.”